best way to make money in 2005

pedro9 said: "well spill it. whats the best way i gonna get rich? :D"

Heather said: "Tech stocks. I think a few of them might do well this year."

HappyHarry said: "1) Get a job 2) Start saving 3) Start investing Make sure you're perfect on every trade 4) Retire rich! :D"

chahinemm said: "the only way u will make money is research... invest in the stock and forget the password of ur account and just put an auto reminder for the account password to pop back up in 1 year. :D chahine"

HappyHarry said: "Yes. Research is the key. There's a world of information out there right now."

misterjover said: "Young Jedi, choose either to join the Dark Side or the Light Side of the Force. If you have a conscience: - Start a business (preferrably a corporation... even if it's a part time gig) - Identify long term economic trends that affect your industry and make forecasts - Establish a solid marketing plan - Maintain an optimal capital structure - Capitalize on the weaknesses of your competitors Or if you just want easy money, do what some of these NYSE and NASDAQ firms do: Go public, create some fluffy PR news, and sell shares like hotcakes. Look what RCO did. Every time their shares are pumped, sold, and diluted, they change names and reverse split. That way, your firm keeps earning money while attracting new shareholders. It's the oldest trick in the book, but it never fails to snag newbie traders."

chahinemm said: "[QUOTE=misterjover]Young Jedi, choose either to join the Dark Side or the Light Side of the Force. If you have a conscience: - Start a business (preferrably a corporation... even if it's a part time gig) - Identify long term economic trends that affect your industry and make forecasts - Establish a solid marketing plan - Maintain an optimal capital structure - Capitalize on the weaknesses of your competitors Or if you just want easy money, do what some of these NYSE and NASDAQ firms do: Go public, create some fluffy PR news, and sell shares like hotcakes. Look what RCO did. Every time their shares are pumped, sold, and diluted, they change names and reverse split. That way, your firm keeps earning money while attracting new shareholders. It's the oldest trick in the book, but it never fails to snag newbie traders.[/QUOTE] DAMN I LIKE OPTION 2 ;) chahine"

misterjover said: "[QUOTE=chahinemm]DAMN I LIKE OPTION 2 ;) chahine[/QUOTE] :cool: Welcome to the Dark Side, young Jedi! :D"

chahinemm said: "[QUOTE=misterjover]:cool: Welcome to the Dark Side, young Jedi! :D[/QUOTE] master ur wishes are my orders emperor :D chahine"

HappyHarry said: "You really can make a lot of money as an executive of a publicly traded company. And thec company can lose money and you still get paid. Almost like being a pro athlete. They can lose games and still get paid. It's much better when there is a performance based system of some sort, preferably bonuses, and very little guaranteed."

misterjover said: "[QUOTE=HappyHarry]You really can make a lot of money as an executive of a publicly traded company. And thec company can lose money and you still get paid. Almost like being a pro athlete. They can lose games and still get paid. It's much better when there is a performance based system of some sort, preferably bonuses, and very little guaranteed.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. I feel that all CEOs and Execs should do what Lee Iacoca did with Chrysler. They should all take a salary of $1 a year with a buttload of shares. That's the best way a firm can know that its managers are acting in the firm's best interests."

HappyHarry said: "I couldn't agree more. If you're confident in your abilities, you'll do it. As a matter of fact, you'd make more with the stock going up, so why do you need a big salary at all?"

willow_road said: "Short the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 when it falls under the 200 day simple moving average and go long when it moves above the 200 dsma. Use a leveraged fund like URPSX, USPSX, ULPSX or UOPSX which deliver 2 times the underlying index movement. URPSX and USPSX are short funds and deliver 2 times the inverse of the underlying index."

AlfredSokol said: "How much capital do you put in trades like this and what broker do you use?"

willow_road said: "I use Ameritrade and I think their minimum is $3000. Also if you stay in the fund family I believe you can swap shares from one fund to another but you'd have to check with them on the requirements and costs, if any. I haven't done that yet as it generally takes me more time to decide what to do and if I made the right decision by ending a trade. The funds noted above are from ProFunds but there are similar offerings at Rydex Funds."

ToastMonger said: "I don't know about the thing about all CEO's taking the token $1 salary like Iacocca. Iacocca had the money to maintain a fairly lavish life style and he took on Chrysler as a project. I think that there are alot of companies out there where the CEO's aren't nearly as established as Iacocca was when he took over Chrysler. I think that certainly there needs to be more performance mandated pay but 100% stock options would be rediculous. There are just some things that the CEO can't control (major economic crash)."

AlfredSokol said: "True, but it's the same thing with big-money athletes. If there was a combination of performance bonuses and salary, it's likely the player would play harder. Where's the motivation when you are a CEO and you're rich regardless of what the company does?"

ToastMonger said: "On the thing about professional athletes, have any of you ever seen the movie Mr. Deeds? The newer one with Adam Sandler that came out in 2001. There is a scene where the star quarterback of the team that Deeds owns comes in and demands more money. His arguement was that he had been working hard and he figured that he should be payed more because he was doing good. Deed's response was "Should we pay you less if you do bad?". Now I don't think that pay should decline with a poor performance but I definitely think that it wouldn't be a bad idea if pay was in a reasonable level to begin with and the stratospheric salaries came from bonuses depending on how well you do. For both CEO's and athletes."

Heather said: "A menial base salary with the opportunity to make bonus money. By winning. That would put all these guys in their place. If you don't perform, you don't get paid. Seems fair."

ToastMonger said: "Ya....the biggest thing in the world that irritates me is what happens with injuries. The Diamondbacks traded several of their best players to pick up Richie Sexson. Sexson gets hurt at the very beginning on the season. The Diamondbacks still have to pay out his $10M+ salary even though he only played maybe 15 games. To add insult to injury he left as a free agent the next season. So the Diamondbacks basically got nothing from their trade and their $10M....I would have liked to have seen him sign back with the D-Backs as a gesture of honor....and for the fact that he got paid for doing jack squat."

Heather said: "I have always thought that football would be a lot better if both teams played for a "PRIZE" and then split it amongst the winning team. If you didn't win, you got a base salary. Sort of like a salesman. It makes them want to play harder."

HappyHarry said: "Think the losers would like a deal like that? They've got it easy these days."

scottigee said: "I'm going to be the boring guy who brings it back on topic here....(although I like the 'play for a prize' idea....) 2005 will be a hold year for me. I bought up a couple blue chips and some low and mid-cap stocks before the election and they're still hovering. Things have been so slow for so long I"m waiting for a rise. It's starting to happen with [URL=http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=tm]Toyota[/URL] and [URL=http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=mmm]3M[/url], but there is still no indication of where the tech stocks will go. I missed the boat on [URL=http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=crm]SalesForce.com[/url]...bought it at 16.35 and decided to hang on for more when it hit $22.70. Oops. Still hanging onto that one. But basically (I work in a tech company) the outlook for Techs is still meager. There's no forseeable reason why tech stocks should go up so I won't buy anymore but I will hang on to see if the economy can pull everything up. One thing I will be buying is a house. Granted I'm at the top of a very steep recent rise in real estate values, but I don't anticipate it dropping all that much and the great thing about Real Estate is that if you sit on it long enough you will make money! So that's my plan for '05....Hold the equities and buy a home."

HappyHarry said: "Yeah. I bought my first house last year, and put less in the market. I was wasting money on rent for years, so at least now I have a nice condo (built in 1999) and some equity. Even Peter Lynch suggest you buy a house before you put money in the stock market."

scottigee said: "who is Peter Lynch? I'm glad I put some money on the market first because it contributed to my statement of assets and helped me get pre-approved for a bigger loan. But now it's time to play with whatever's on there already and put the rest into one of the safest investments around. And the shoulda woulda coulda.... [b]I should have done this years ago![/b] my friends who bought around here 3 years ago nearly doubled their money. Doubling $200k in 3 years is really, really, really awesome. I won't do that of course but I'll take the standard 10% And like you said it sure beats renting. I figure I'm wasting $10k/year on rent, so even if my house depreciates by that amount I"m still on top thanks to the writeoffs and equity."